Ex-Israeli PM: Netanyahu Isn't Mr. Security, He’s 'Mr. Bullshit'
Every minute Netanyahu is prime minister he is a danger to Israel, former official says
John Kirby, the White House National Security Council spokesperson, said in an interview that Washington believes there will be a certain period of time that Israeli forces will have to stay inside Gaza to provide security after its bombing campaign on civilians ends.
“I think all of us can foresee a period of time after the conflict is over where Israeli forces will likely still be in Gaza and will have some initial security responsibilities,” he said, according to The Times of Israel.
Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, said in an interview that current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a state of “nervous breakdown” as he tries to maintain his power after the 7 October Hamas attack.
“[Netanyahu] has shrunk,” he told Politico. “He’s destroyed emotionally, that’s for sure. I mean, something terrible happened to him. Bibi has been working all his life on the false pretense that he is Mr. Security. He’s Mr. Bullshit. Every minute he is prime minister he is a danger to Israel. I seriously mean it. I am certain the Americans understand he is in bad shape.”
Prior to the attack, Netanyahu was facing mounting pressure due to his push for a sweeping judicial overhaul in Israel. He was reportedly told repeatedly that a major attack was looming but brushed off the warnings for months.
The New York Times reported that Israel’s inquiry into the attack that resulted in 1,400 people killed and hundreds kidnapped is in its infancy, but it is clear that security officials warned Netanyahu that domestic strife was becoming a security vulnerability.
Netanyahu took the position that these warnings were politically motivated.
The paper, citing Israeli officials, reported that Netanyahu even refused to meet with a senior general in July. The official wanted to warn the leader who billed himself as “mister security,” about the soaring threat level.
TRENDPOST: Gerald Celente has long said: When all else fails, they take you to war.
The day before Hamas’s attack, The New York Times published a story about Netanyahu’s political struggles in the country.
Netanyahu thinks of himself in Churchillian terms. He would like to be remembered as the leader who faced down the Iran menace, the savior of Israel in the face of forbidding odds for the Jewish people. But the country’s 75th year will be noted for something quite different. Its democracy is dimming; the public has never been more divided. Netanyahu has pushed Israel to the brink, gradually and then suddenly.
He faced corruption charges that could bring a prison sentence, he faced historic weekly protests against the judicial overhaul that some analysts said could explode into a civil war, and his relationship with Washington was souring because of his aggressive, pro-settler stance in the West Bank.
Netanyahu’s office was forced to deny a report on Channel 13 news that the prime minister floated the idea that the reservists’ strike during his judicial reforms push could have provided Hamas with an opening.
Benny Gantz, a Netanyahu rival, seized on Israeli reports about Netanyahu tying the attack to the protests and posted on X: “Evading responsibility and mudslinging during war deals harm to the country. The prime minister must unequivocally retract his statement.”
Netanyahu’s office said: “Contrary to what was published, the prime minister did not in any way say that the (reservists’) refusal was what led Hamas to attack Israel.”
The question remains how it was possible that the Israelis could possibly have been taken by surprise and the report adds weight to the theory that Netanyahu knew.
Phil Giraldi wrote last month:
Am I the only one who read about a speech given by Netanyahu or someone in his cabinet about a week ago in which he/they in passing referred to a “developing security situation” which rather suggests (to me) that they might have known about developments in Gaza and chose to let it happen so they can wipe Gaza off the map in retaliation and, possibly relying on the U.S. pledge to have Israel’s “back,” then implicating Iran and attacking that country. I cannot find a link to it, but have a fairly strong recollection of what I read as I thought at the time it would serve as a pretext for another massacre of Palestinians.
Ben Bartee, a Bangkok-based American journalist, posted on his Substack page that questioned the Western narrative that the attack on Israel was some kind of a massive intelligence failure.